So far I've spent most time preparing for the calculation sections. I can definitely do a question on signalling in Section B, and the odds are high that there will be one. I can definitely do a question on repeated games in Section C. For my other Section C question, I could do moral hazard or bargaining, depending which is less horrible. It's about even odds that there will be a question on all three of these. There are good odds that some pair of them will be present. That leaves me in a situation of quite possibly having to choose in Section C between a horrid question on something I've prepared well, or a standard question on something I don't know so well.

As for Section A, I haven't thought about it too much. We will be required to state the truth value of a given statement and explain why it has that truth value. There are so many tiny theoretical details in the course that could show up here, I'm in despair about what to swot up. My consolation is that two from five is a lot of choice, and that "false" answers can be demonstrated with a counterexample, reducing the need for deep theoretical understanding of every pointless little thing.

In short, I can calculate, but not theorise. Or (if you prefer) I can do stuff, but I don't know what it is I'm doing.